100%(26)26 out of 26 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 7 pages.
development. They could also submit claims of strict liability for the commercial sale of a defective product.In the argument for their claims of negligence, the consumers could argue that the five (5)elements for a claim of negligence were met based on the following:1.Duty of CareThe duty of care was from the manufacturer to the consumer. NBD had a duty to ensure that the laptops they provided to the consumers were safe for use.2.Gross Negligence, Reckless and Wonton BehaviorThe actions of NBD’s research and development team to deliberately cover upthe defect, was a severe departure from the standard owed to its consumers and as such was grossly negligent. Their decision was extremely reckless and was a complete disregard for the potentially harmful consequences of their decision.3.Causation of FactHad NBD corrected the overheating problem when it was discovered, the injuries suffered by the consumers would not have occurred. Their failure to rectify this issue directly resulted in consumers getting injured.
DUALPLEX 36044.Proximate CausationThe NBD research and development team should have reasonably foreseen that some consumers would leave their laptops plugged in, and that this wouldhave resulted in consumer injuries and property damages.5.Actual InjurySeveral consumers have reported that they were injured and their property damaged due to their Dualplex laptops overheating.Based on the preceding arguments regarding elements of negligence, it is very likely that NBD could be found to have been negligent in their actions (Fraud and Negligence Torts, 2019). Section 2 - 314 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requires that all commercial products be sold with an implied warranty. The warranty guarantees that the product is fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is to be used (Warranties, 2019). Unfortunately, the substandard laptops were overheating and igniting during the ordinary function of charging. Therefore, the consumers could also file a claim for strict liability tort against NBD. In this claim, they could argue that NBD was strictly liable for the manufacture and sale of an unreasonably dangerous and defective product. These claims would fall under the design and defect of strict liability due